THIS parable recorded in Luke 16:19, is generally regarded
as being the utterance of our Lord (though nothing is said of
his having uttered it), and we so regard it.

The great difficulty with many is, that though they call it a
parable, they reason on it, and draw conclusions from it, as
though it were a literal statement and not a parable.
To think
of it as a literal statement involves quite a number of absurdities;
for instance: that the rich man went to hell because he had
enjoyed many earthly blessings and have nothing but crumbs to
Lazarus.
Not a word is said about his wickedness.
Again, Lazarus
is blessed, not because he is a sincere child of God, full of
faith and trustnot because he was good, but simply because he
was poor and sick. If this be understood literally, the only
logical lesson to be drawn from it is, that unless you are a poor
beggar, full of sores, you will never enter into future bliss, and if
now you wear any "fine linen" and "purple," and have plenty
to eat every day, you are sure to go to hades.
Again, the place of
bliss is "Abraham's bosom," and if the whole statement is literal,
the bosom must be literal, and would not hold very many of
earth's millions of sick and poor.
But why consider the absurdities?
All unprejudiced minds recognize it as a parable.

Lazarus represented the Gentilesall nations of the world
aside from the Israelites.
These, at the time of the utterance of
this parable, were entirely destitute of those blessings which
Israel enjoyed; they lay at the gate of the rich man.
No rich
promises of royalty were theirs; not even typically were they
cleansed; but in moral sickness, pollution, and sin they were
companions of "dogs."
Dogs were regarded as detestable creatures
in those days, and the typically clean Jew called the
outsiders "heathen" and "dogs," and would never eat with them, nor marry nor have any dealings with them.John 4:9.
As to the "eating the crumbs (of favor) which fell from the rich
man's table" of bounties, Jesus' words to the Syro-Phoenician
woman give us a key.
He said to this Gentile woman"It is
not meet (proper) to take the children's (Israelites) bread and
give it to the dogs" (Gentiles); and she answered, "Yea, Lord,
but the dogs eat of the crumbs that fall from their master's table."Matt. 15:27.
Jesus healed her daughter, thus giving
the desired crumb of favor. But there came a time when the
typical righteousness ceasedwhen the promise of royalty ceased [R284 : page 156] to be theirs, and the kingdom was taken from them to be given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.Matt. 21:43.
The rich man died to all these special advantages and soon he (the
Jewish nation) found himself in "gehenna fire"a cast-off condition,
in trouble, tribulation and affliction, in which they have
suffered from that day to this.

Lazarus also died: the condition of the Gentiles underwent a
change, and from the Gentiles many were carried by the angels
(messengers, apostles, etc.) to Abraham's bosom.
Abraham is
represented as the father of the faith-full and receives to his
bosom all the children of faithwho thus are recognized as the
heirs to all the promises made to Abraham.
For the children of
the flesh, these are not the children of God, but the "children of
the promise are counted for the seed" (children of Abraham)
"which seed is Christ," and "if ye be Christ's then are ye (believers)
Abraham's seed (children) and heirs according to the (Abrahamic) promise."Gal. 3:29.
Yes, the condition of things
then existing terminated by deathat the death of Jesus"for
if one died for all, then were all dead."
There the Jew was cast
off and has since been shown "no favor," and the poor Gentiles
who before had been "aliens from the commonwealth (the
promises) of Israel and without God and having no hope in the
world," were then "brought nigh by the blood of Christ" and "reconciled to God."Eph. 2:13.
If the two tribes living in
Judea (Judah and Benjamin) were represented by one rich man,
would it not be in harmony to suppose that the five brethren
represented the remaining ten tribes, who had "Moses and the
Prophets" as their instructors?
The question relative to them
was doubtless introduced to show that all special favor of God
ceased to the ten tribes, as well as to the two directly addressed.
It seems to us evident, that Israel only was meant, for none othernation than Israel had "Moses and the prophets" as instructors.

In a word, this parable seems to teach precisely what Paul
explained in Rom. 11:19-31.
How that because of unbelief, the
natural branches were broken off, and the wild branches grafted
in to the Abrahamic promises.
In the parable, Jesus leaves
them in the trouble, and does not refer to their final restoration
to favor, doubtless because it was not pertinent to the feature of
the subject treated; but Paul assures us, that when the fullness
of the Gentilesthe Bridebe come in "they (the Israelites)
shall obtain mercy through your (the Church's) mercy."
He
assures us that this is God's covenant with fleshly Israel (they
lost the higherspiritualpromises, but are still the possessors [R284 : page 157] of certain earthly promises) to become the chief nation of earth,
etc.
In proof of this statement, he quotes the Prophets, saying:
"The deliverer shall come out of Zion, (the glorified church,) and
shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob," (the fleshly seed).
As
concerning the Gospel, (high calling) they are enemies, (cast off)
for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for
the fathers' sakes.
"For God hath concluded them all in unbelief,
that he might have mercy upon all.
O the depths of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God!"Rom. 11:30-32.



HAVING A DESIRE TO DEPART AND BE WITH CHRIST.

Paul was a prisoner at Rome, awaiting freedom or death, he
knew not which.
He had, since entering the ministry, gone
through an eventful career and endured much suffering.
He
recounts to the Philippian church that, though he has suffered
much, it has resulted in the furtherance of the gospel.
Therefore
he rejoices.
Then he muses, wondering whether it is the
will of God that he continue to live, preach, write, and suffer,
and thus be a blessing to the church, or whether he has done
his work and will rest in death, being at the same time an illustrious martyr. And he asks himself, as it were, the question:
Which would you prefer to do if it were left to your decision?
and concludes that he would not know which of the two things to choose; but he knows of a third thing which he would be in no doubt about if he were at liberty to choose it.
He is in a
strait between two, having a desire for the third.

The "Emphatic Diaglott" translates the passage thus: "Christ
will be magnified in my body by life or by death. Therefore for
me to live is Christ, and to die is gain.
But if to live in the
flesh, this to me is a fruit of labor; and what I should choose I
do not exactly know: I am indeed hard pressed by the two things.
I have an earnest desire for the RETURNING and being with Christ, since it is very much to be preferred."Phil. 1:23.

An explanatory foot-note says, relative to the Greek Analusia, rendered returning, as above: Analusia, or the returning, being
what Paul earnestly desired, could not be death or dissolution,
as implied by the word depart in common version, because it seemed a matter of indifference to him which of the twolife or deathhe should choose; but he longed for the analusia, which was a third thing, and very much to be preferred to either
of the other two things alluded to.
The word analusia occurs
in Luke 12:36, and is there rendered return. "Be you like men
waiting for their master when he will return," etc.